www.nature.
com/scientificreports
OPEN
Received: 19 January 2018
Accepted: 24 July 2018
Published: xx xx xxxx
SCientifiC REPOrTS | (2018) 8:11909 | DOI:10.1038/s41598-018-30401-0
Gauss’s law for networks directly
reveals community boundaries
Ayan Sinha1, David F. Gleich2 & Karthik Ramani1
The study of network topology provides insight into the function and behavior of physical, social, and
biological systems. A natural step towards discovering the organizing principles of these complex
topologies is to identify a reduced network representation using cohesive subgroups or communities.
This procedure often uncovers the underlying mechanisms governing the functional assembly of
complex networks. A community is usually defined as a subgraph or a set of nodes that has more edges
than would be expected from a simple, null distribution of edges over the graph. This view drives
objective such as modularity. Another perspective, corresponding to objectives like conductance
or density, is that communities are groups of nodes that have extremal properties with respect to
the number of internal edges and cut edges. Here we show that identifying community boundaries
rather than communities results in a more accurate decomposition of the network into informative
components. We derive a network analog of Gauss’s law that relates a measure of flux through a
subgraph’s boundary to the connectivity among the subgraph’s nodes. Our Gauss’s law for networks
naturally characterizes a community as a subgraph with high flux through its boundary. Aggregating
flux over these boundaries gives rise to a Laplacian and forms the basis of our “Laplacian modularity”
quality function for community detection that is applicable to general network types. This technique
allows us to determine communities that are both overlapping and hierarchically organized.
We illustrate the efficacy of our method using an undirected, unweighted network1,2. Nevertheless, our framework
for community detection is valid for directed, weighted, signed, and even multislice networks3. Hierarchical and
overlapping organization of communities in most real-world networks suggests that there is no best partition as
derived by quality functions. Instead there are several good partitions with varying degrees of overlap at different
scales corresponding to various organizational levels of the network4,5. We demonstrate how the multiscale heat
kernel6 extends our quality function to reveal these good partitions and provides a consolidated understanding of
communities, their overlap, and relevant hierarchies.
Although there is no consensus, a common abstraction is that communities are subgraphs with strong
intra-subgraph cohesion and weak inter-subgraph cohesion, where cohesive strength is measured either in terms
of direct connections or more sophisticated connectivity measures7–9. In this manuscript, we seek to use infor-
mation about the boundary between subgraphs to identify the communities themselves. In the case of networks,
the boundary information arises by generalizing the concept of a scalar field’s curvature to the links of a network
(Fig. 1a,b, Eq. 3). This information reliably indicates the module structure even in the presence of substantial
noise (Fig. 1c).
Relationships between boundaries and their contents are common in physics such as how the well-known
Gauss’s law relates the electric flux through a surface boundary to the charge enclosed within the surface (Fig. 2a).
Our approach to detect communities boundaries uses a network analog of Gauss’s law to relate a flux through a
subgraph’s boundary to the cohesion among the nodes of a subgraph (Fig. 2b). The method works with respect to
a general measure of connectivity (or similarity) between all pairs of nodes encoded in matrix S. (Unlike original
Gauss’s law, there is flexibility in the choice of S. All experiments in this manuscript set S to be the heat kernel, and
the supplement discusses results for alternative choices of S). The element S(i,j) either gives the adjacency A(i,j) of
nodes i and j in the network or an extended similarity of node i to j evaluated using a reference property such as
common neighbors, path connectivity, etc.10; we call S(i,j) the connectivity potential of i,j. Given S, the flux
through a subgraph boundary for a node, termed connectivity flux, mirrors the electric flux through a surface for
an electrostatic potential field, albeit in a discrete setting (See Fig. 2c and Methods). A subgraph’s boundary com-
prises links that separate the subgraph from the rest of the network. Each boundary link has an internal and
1
School of Mechanical Engineering, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, 47907, USA. 2Department of Computer
Science, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, 47907, USA. Correspondence and requests for materials should be
addressed to A.S. (email: sinhayan@gmail.com)
1
www.nature.com/scientificreports/

Figure 1.  Identifying module boundaries improves detection. (a) The curvature (color) identifies the
boundaries (high curvature) between the peaks that represent the values of the scalar field (height). (b) (Top)
A curvature-like metric of a network shows the same effect wherein the curvature of inter-community links
is higher (darker shades of red) relative to intra-community links. (Bottom Left) The curvature of links in
the network are displayed in the link curvature matrix. The curvature increases as color changes from blue to
yellow. (Bottom Right) The histogram of curvature values shows a gap between the curvature of intra-module
and inter-module links allowing easy detection. (c) The same methodology is applicable to general graphs such
as social networks, meshes and images and identifies module boundaries even in the presence of large noise.
The identified modules are mapped to the corresponding noiseless graphs in the top-right corner for visual
verification.

external node with respect to the subgraph. Thus, the set of boundary links induces two disjoint multisets (i.e.,
sets with repeated elements) of internal and external boundary nodes (see Methods). Consequently, the connec-
tivity flux for a node i with respect to subgraph C’s boundary is equal to the difference of two terms, one measur-
ing the connectivity of the node i to internal boundary nodes and one to external boundary nodes. We call them
the internal Si(Cin) and external Si(Cout) boundary cohesion, respectively (see Methods). Note that because of the
multisets, each cohesion expression has exactly the same number of terms (See Fig. 2d). The net connectivity flux
q(C) through subgraph C’s boundary for the set of nodes constituting the subgraph, is then equal to
q(C ) = ∑ i ∈ C (S i (Cin) − S i (Cout )), which we write as q(C) = Sin(C) − Sout(C). The decomposition of connectivity
flux into internal and external components allows us to characterize communities in both a strong and weak
sense11 (see Supplementary Material, section 2.1). High connectivity flux through the subgraph boundary, q(C) =
Sin(C) − Sout(C) suggests a difference in the strength of internal and external cohesion of subgraph C, and conse-
quently, a close-knit community (Fig. 2e).
The relationship between flux and communities motivates an additive quality function Q, to evaluate a parti-
tion  of nodes in a network:

SCientifiC REPOrTS | (2018) 8:11909 | DOI:10.1038/s41598-018-30401-0 2

www.nature.com/scientificreports/

Figure 2.  Community detection using Gauss’s Law. (a) Classical Gauss’s law. (b) Gauss’s law for networks
implicitly measures the enclosed connectivity distribution as the connectivity flux through the boundary. (c)
Evaluating connectivity flux through a boundary for a node in the network. (d) Connectivity flux quantified
as measures of cohesion. (e) Connectivity flux through a boundary for a subgraph: High and low values of
this connectivity flux indicate good communities or absence of community structure, respectively. The darker
region of blue indicate higher connectivity flux. The color of nodes (blue to red) highlight the magnitude of
connectivity flux (positive to negative) through the boundary. (f) Laplacian modularity quality function derived
from the cumulative connectivity flux for a network partition.

Q= ∑ q(C ) = ∑ (Sin(C ) − Sout (C )).

C∈ C∈ (1)
We clarify how our method relates to Gauss’s law by first illustrating the classical Gauss’s law in a manner that
will serve our purpose of drawing analogies between Gauss’s law for electrostatics and our method for commu-
nity detection. Assume there are independent electrostatic potential fields on a 2D domain (Fig. 3a, left). These
potential fields capture a point’s influence on its 2D neighborhood. The gradient of the electrostatic potential
defines the electric field as per classical electrostatics. The electric flux is then a measure of electric field flowing
through a 2D boundary (Fig. 3a, center). Gauss’s law states that the electric flux flowing through a boundary is
proportional to the total charge enclosed by the boundary. This then becomes the area integral of the charge
distribution over the enclosed domain. The charge distribution is calculated as the divergence of the gradient
of the potential field due to the Gauss’s theorem (Fig. 3a, right). As electrostatic potential is a scalar quantity,
the net electrostatic potential over the 2D is a superposition of all potential fields on the 2D domain (Fig. 3b).
The boundary maximizing the total electric potential is simply the boundary of the 2D domain as all potential
values are positive over the domain. We can independently partition the 2D domain into 2D regions maximizing
enclosed positive charge distribution for each potential field using Gauss’s law (Fig. 3c). However, this partition
may not be a hard partition as some 2D regions may overlap each other. Hence, we jointly identify the boundaries
or collectively maximize the individual charge distributions due to potential fields to obtain a consistent partition
of the 2D domain (Fig. 3d).

SCientifiC REPOrTS | (2018) 8:11909 | DOI:10.1038/s41598-018-30401-0 3

www.nature.com/scientificreports/

Figure 3.  Partitioning a 2D domain using Gauss’s law. (a) Gauss’s law on a 2D domain. Left: Different
electrostatic potential fields, Sk, at various points on a 2D domain. Higher potentials appear as darker shades of
purple. Center: The electric flux calculated as the gradient of the potential field, −∇Sk. Right: The isocontours of
the electrostatic charge distribution, given as ∆Sk due to Gauss’s law. Higher potentials appear as darker shades
of purple, and the charge distribution varies from negative to positive as the color changes from orange to
purple. The continuous 2D boundary maximizing the enclosed charge distribution is shown as a blue curve. (b)
Superposition of the potential fields on the 2D domain. (c) Independently maximizing the enclosed positive
charges gives rise to a soft partitioning of the 2D domain. (d) Collectively maximizing the charge distributions
outputs a consistent partition without overlap. (e) Variation of curvature of a network. S(i, j) is based on the
adjacency information. The curvature of the red solid links or red dotted non-edges, B(i, j) between nodes i and
j depends on the number of common neighbors.

Our main result, which is our network analog of Gauss’s law, is a reformulation of Q that relates its definition
in terms of the flux through the boundary to the internal connectivity (Fig. 2f):

Q= ∑[LS + SL]δ(i, j),

i ,j (2)
where δ(i, j) is 1 if i and j belong to the same community and 0 otherwise, L is a matrix known as the Laplacian, the
discrete analogue of the Laplace operator (In the case of a weighted network, we interpret Eq. 2 with the weighted
Laplacian to ensure the computation is continuous with respect to small edge weights), and Q is interpreted as
the net charge within modules of the partition. This new formulation shows that Q possesses the key properties of
the modularity quality function12 (see Supplementary Material, section 2.2 for derivation of Eq. 2). Hence, we call
our quality function the Laplacian modularity and the matrix B = LS + SL the Laplacian modularity matrix. The
Laplacian modularity, like modularity, values the coarse one-way partition as zero for any S (see Supplementary
Material, section 2.2). However, unlike modularity, it does not suffer from the traditional resolution limit13 if S is
a local potential (see Supplementary Material, section 2.6).
An alternate interpretation of the Laplacian modularity matrix is that the ijth term is the curvature of a link:
1 1
B(i, j) = d i(S(i, j) − ∑ S(k , j)) + d j(S(i, j) − d j ∑ S(i, k)).
d i k ∈ N (i ) k ∈ N (j ) (3)
Here d is the degree of node i and N(i) indicates the immediate neighbors of node i. The terms in the parenthe-
i

sis are the similarity of node i and j minus the average similarity over the local neighborhoods of nodes i and j,
respectively (Note in the term 1i ∑k∈ N (i )S(k , j), the sum is over the similarity between neighbors of node i and node
d
j. This term equates to 1 for S = A only if all neighbors of node i are also connected to j. See Supplementary Material,
section 2.3). That is, it measures the rate at which the connectivity of a link deviates from the average connectivity

SCientifiC REPOrTS | (2018) 8:11909 | DOI:10.1038/s41598-018-30401-0 4

www.nature.com/scientificreports/

value over a local neighborhood. We show Fig. 3e to illustrate how the curvature expression varies based on the
local configuration. The left column shows that the value of curvature for a link between two nodes i and j, each
with degree 6, decreases as the number of common neighbors increase. A high value of curvature between two
nodes implies a higher likelihood of the link to be a boundary link. Similarly, the right column shows the variation
of curvature between two nodes i and j for the non-edges. Thus, each term in B encodes a curvature-like metric and
collectively, a subgraph is a community for the Laplacian modularity if the internal connectivity is higher than the
average connectivity calculated over the local neighborhood of nodes in the subgraph.
Two prominent features of communities in real world networks are overlap, characterized as the possibility of
nodes having multiple memberships in communities14, and hierarchy, representing the organization of commu-
nities over multiple scales5. Although there are abundant methods for finding overlapping15,16 and hierarchical17,18
community structure in network science individually, identifying relevant hierarchical communities in the pres-
ence of overlap remains an problem9. We resolve this problem by using the heat kernel of a network, Ht, as the
connectivity potential matrix S in order to holistically characterize overlapping and hierarchical communities.
The heat kernel, Ht, has a parametric dependence on the time scale, t, of a Markovian process on the network.
Hence, it is intrinsically multiscale with a natural interpretation in terms of the size and resolution of the network
communities under study (see Supplementary Material, section 3.1). We write the quality function where S is
Ht as Qt. Although Qt measures non-overlapping partitions, overlapping nodes can be identified by evaluating
the nodal flux associated with each community boundary (see Fig. 4a,b and Methods). The parametric quantity
Qt also gives us a way to pick t. By viewing this quantity as a stability curve (see Fig. 4c and Methods)18, we can
hierarchically organize network partitions, from fine to coarse as t increases. Good organizational levels of the
network emerge as large regions in t with the same optimal community assignment (see Supplementary Material,
section 3.4). Using this property, we develop a parameter free algorithm for Laplacian modularity optimization
using the heat kernel to identify the most relevant partition of a network (see Methods).
We validate our approach using twenty networks of varying size and topology spanning diverse scientific
domains. Of these, ten have known ground truth community assignments (see Supplementary Material, section 5
for details). On these networks, our Laplacian modularity optimization produces the most accurate communities
(Fig. 5a) as measured in terms of the widely used omega index19 for 9 of the 10 networks when compared against
five prominent community detection methods: modularity optimization12,20, Infomap21, OSLOM22, link commu-
nities23, and clique percolation14. For the networks with unknown community assignment, we follow a previously
used approach23 to derive a composite performance metric for each method from the metadata. The composite
performance metric is a normalized sum of four measures: community quality, overlap quality, community cov-
erage, and overlap coverage. In Fig. 5b, we see that Laplacian modularity framework is the overall leader for all
networks. Its performance is especially striking for biological networks that are expected to be incomplete. (See
Supplementary Material, section 6 for additional details on these comparisons).
In addition, our stability curve offers a natural way to interpret relevant hierarchical communities in the net-
work. English words have associations at many different levels, and our method identifies four levels (Fig. 6a).
For example, words associated with alcoholism and soft drinks appear as separate communities in the third
level, and the alcoholism subcommunity is semantically subdivided in the fourth level. The stability curve of
the air transportation network identifies partitions that correspond well to our natural concept of a commu-
nity, i.e., the first level roughly identifies the large geopolitical regions of North America, South America, the
Europe-Africa-Middle East region, and the Asia-Pacific region. The second level identifies finer regions including
Europe (alone) and Australia, and the third level subdivides continents into small country-sized regions (Fig. 6b)
while maintaining spatial proximity of overlapping communities (see Supplementary Material, section 6.4).
Finally, we do extensive comparisons on synthetic benchmarks including the stochastic block model and
the LFR benchmark24, including further methodological comparisons against heat-kernel based analogues of
Infomap and modularity. (See Supplementary Material, section 7.) These show our technique achieves bet-
ter results in the LFR benchmark and slightly better results than the Hashimoto matrix25 in identifying the
block-model components.
Our idea of identifying the community boundaries has its roots in the original Girvan-Newman algorithm
that iteratively removes boundary links based on edge betweenness7. In comparison, optimizing the Laplacian
modularity quality function reveals the boundary links all at once. The power of the Laplacian modularity frame-
work also lies in the flexibility of discovering community structure given any metric of similarity, local or global,
consistent with many ideas of cohesion (see Supplementary Material, section 8.2). These ideas have a strong
connection to classical physics through the network analog of Gauss’s law. We believe that our approach using
Gauss’s law to identify community boundaries, in concert with system-specific connectivity potentials, holds
great promise in improving our understanding of the modular nature of complex networks.
More generally, our research establishes a new and complementary direction in the space of community detec-
tion algorithms based on looking for boundaries using curvature and network analogs of Gauss’s law. In com-
parison with modularity-based methods, it provides substantial additional flexibility and seeks partitions based
on how the boundaries of the communities appear in the data given connectivity potentials; and we get to re-use
algorithmic innovations in the space of modularity clustering because our final matrix shares the same type of
optimization objective (see Supplementary Material, section 2.5). More broadly, in comparison with a number of
techniques based on diffusions or flows26, our work can be interpreted as a midpoint between modularity-style
statistical deviance techniques and diffusion-style conductance techniques in that Laplacian modularity com-
bines continuous diffusion, when setting the connectivity potential via the heat-kernel, with a boundary detection
scheme. In the future this approach could in principle be combined with connectivity information in S based on
network flows among various regions of the graph to produce further hybrid methods27 or with spectral algo-
rithms based on eigenvectors of the Laplacian modularity matrix that might give robust interpretations to various
heuristic decisions that many practitioners make in large scale graph experiments28.

SCientifiC REPOrTS | (2018) 8:11909 | DOI:10.1038/s41598-018-30401-0 5

www.nature.com/scientificreports/

Figure 4.  Overlapping and hierarchal communities using Laplacian modularity and the heat kernel. The heat
kernel depends on a parameter t that controls the resolution of the communities (small t is fine, and large t
is coarse). (a) Network of 29 nodes. (b) (Left) Six identified communities at a small time, tA with overlapping
nodes highlighted in red in the network representation. The rows and columns in the matrix representation
follow a linear ordering indexed by node number. Blue matrix cells indicate positive values and red cells
indicate negative values. (Right) Increasing the time shows three identified communities at large time, tB with
overlapping nodes in red. Observe the overlapping node at large time tB is not overlapping at the small time tA,
implying it has a weak connection with the individual yellow and blue communities identified at time tA, but
a strong connection with them merged into one (green community at time tB), that is, overlap emerges with
time t. (c) The stability curve derived using the heat kernel. The stability curve for the network shows two large
persistent time-spans enclosed within dotted lines corresponding to the 3-way partition and 6-way partition.

We have illustrated the Laplacian modularity under the paradigm of heat diffusion in order to systemat-
ically uncover overlapping communities organized at relevant hierarchical scales of a network. Our frame-
work extends to other notions of similarity that generate the connectivity potentials. We also investigate
multi-resolution Laplacians, cosine similarities, and adjacency matrices (see Supplementary Material, section 8).
Our method scales to networks with millions of nodes when the connectivity potential is sparse. The Laplacian
modularity quality function is further extensible to networks with directed, weighted, and signed links (see
Supplementary Material, sections 4.1, 4.2, 4.3), applicable to time-dependent multiplex or multislice networks
(see Supplementary Material, section 4.4), and hence, capable of identifying community structure in a broad class
of networks. Indeed, because of the focus on boundaries, our method is able to seamlessly generalize to using
boundaries in terms of network motifs rather than edges29.

Methods
Evaluating connectivity flux through a boundary link.  According to classical electrodynamics, the
electric field at a point in space is the gradient of the electrostatic potential at the corresponding point. Given the
connectivity potentials between all pairs of nodes, the connectivity flux for a node i through a link Eb is then the
symmetric difference of node i’s connectivity potentials with respect to the two nodes constituting the link, Eb, say
m and n (Fig. 6c, Top) (The connectivity field is conservative and has curl zero along any path on the network. See
Supplementary Material, section 2.3):

SCientifiC REPOrTS | (2018) 8:11909 | DOI:10.1038/s41598-018-30401-0 6

www.nature.com/scientificreports/

Figure 5.  Performance of community detection methods on real-world networks. (a) Performance on ten
networks with known community assignment measured with the omega index of identified communities
against ground truth. (b) Composite performance based on metadata on ten networks with unknown
community assignment. The tables below list the number of nodes, N, and the average node degree, 〈k〉 for each
network.

S i (Eb) = (S(i, m) + S(m, i)) − (S(i, n) + S(n, i)). (4)

Here, m refers to an internal node and n to an external node. As the flux through a surface is the area integral
of the electric field, the net connectivity flux of node i through a boundary is the sum of the connectivity flux
through all links constituting the subgraph boundary, EB, i.e., ∑ b ∈ BS i (Eb) (Fig. 2c, Bottom).

Internal and external boundary cohesion.  Consider the subgraph induced by a subset of nodes C and
let V, E be the set of all nodes and links in the network, respectively. Let EB be the boundary links of this subgraph
and CB be the multiset of nodes induced by the boundary links:
CB = ∪
( m , n) ∈ E
{{m}} ∪ {{n}}.
m∈ C
n∉C (5)
Then the multiset of internal nodes is represented as Cin = {{m|m ∈ C and m ∈ CB}}, and the multiset of
external nodes is represented as Cout = {{n|n ∉ C and n ∈ CB}}. The cohesion of node i with respect to a general
multiset  is:

S i ( ) = ∑ (S(j, i) + S(i, j)),

j∈ (6)
where the summation includes all the repetitions in the multiset. The internal boundary cohesion of node i with
respect to CBCB is then S i (Cin) and the external boundary cohesion is S i (Cout ). This decomposition enables us to
write the connectivity flux of node i through the boundary as ∑ b ∈ BS i (Eb) = S i (Cin) − S i (Cout ) (Fig. 2d).

Identifying overlap.  Overlapping nodes are simply nodes with net positive connectivity flux to multiple
communities for the given connectivity potentials S. Mathematically, the positive terms in the matrix XT L(S + ST )
identify overlapping nodes, where X is a 0–1 indicator matrix for the hard partition of dimensions |V| × K where
|V| is the number of nodes in the network and K the number of communities (see Supplementary Material, sec-
tion 2.4 and Fig. 4b). This definition can be formally interpreted using the strong and weak definition of commu-
nities given in the Supplementary Material, section 2.4.

Determining hierarchy.  Hierarchy results from varying t in the heat kernel, Ht used as the connectivity
potential, S. Note that the communities at two different instants of time t don’t always comprise each other; and
thus using the heat kernel as a metric of similarity identifies a soft hierarchy. The element Ht (i, j) in the heat kernel
represents the probability of a random walker to move from node i to node j after a walk of length  where  is
determined by a Poisson process with mean t. It suffices to only consider the term LHt for S = Ht in Eq. 2 because
LHt is symmetric, unbiased and has an intuitive diffusion interpretation (see Supplementary Material, section
3.2). We represent LHt as Bt in this discussion. Substituting Ht = e−t  in Bt results in D e−t , where  is the

SCientifiC REPOrTS | (2018) 8:11909 | DOI:10.1038/s41598-018-30401-0 7

www.nature.com/scientificreports/

Figure 6.  Hierarchical communities using Laplacian modularity. (a) Hierarchy in word association network.
The stability curve (left) indicates that the network should be hierarchically organized into 25 and 66
communities. We also show the 164 and 217 communities information for deeper hierarchy. The subgraph
shown is a community of the 25-way partition (first level). The dotted enclosed regions correspond to stable
subcommunities in the 66-way partition (second level). The colors correspond to stable subcommunities in the
164-way partition (third level). Further subdivision of the red subcommunity in the 217-way partition is shown
separately to the left (fourth level). (b) Hierarchical structure of air transportation network, divided into 28, 76
and 133 communities from left to right as identified by the stability curve identifies geopolitically significant
regions at various size-scales.

( )
random walk Laplacian which is physically interpreted as the negative rate of diffusion − dHt scaled by D. It
dt
follows from principles of diffusion that the partition which maximizes Qt (the trace of the clustered matrix,
XT Bt X ) minimizes the net diffusive tendency within subgraphs. The heat diffusion may reach a temporary local
equilibrium at time t before it proceeds to the global equilibrium (t = ∞). Intuitively, a partition optimal over a
long time span corresponds to a stable temporary equilibrium. Using this intuition in conjunction with the mono-
tonicity of Qt , we define a stability curve r(t) to be the maximum value of the Laplacian modularity over the space
of all partitions X, i.e,
 1 T 
r(t ) = maxXtrace X Bt X  ,
 2|E|  (7)
where the trivial constant 2|E| ensures that the measure lies in [0, 1] and |E| is number of links. The hierarchical
community organization of the network can be explored using this stability curve.

Laplacian Modularity Optimization.  We use the heat kernel Ht as S in all our experiments and use the
Louvain method20 to optimize Laplacian modularity Qt at each time t (see Supplementary Material, section 2.5 for
pseudo code) (Thus, our method is not a spectral method based on relaxing to real-valued assignments or eigen-
vectors.) However, only the partition with maximal persistence over a logarithmic time range is picked for a fair

SCientifiC REPOrTS | (2018) 8:11909 | DOI:10.1038/s41598-018-30401-0 8

www.nature.com/scientificreports/

comparison to the other methods (see Supplementary Material, section 3.5). In order to discern overlap in this
optimal partition, we first calculate the fuzzy overlap membership of each node to all subgraphs at discrete time
values in the persistent basin. This corresponds to entries of the matrix XoT Bt , where Xo is the overlap indicator
matrix (see Supplementary Material, section 3.5). We then introduce a threshold parameter ε that converts fuzzy
overlap membership over the time range into a hard overlap. The choice of ε is guided by the intuition that ε = 1
outputs a hard partition (no overlap), and ε = 0 identifies small structural overlaps. The latter is especially relevant
for networks with incomplete information or missing links. We set ε = 1 for networks with known communities
because the ground-truth is a hard partition and ε = 0 for networks with unknown community assignment where
we expect pervasive overlap.

References
1. Newman, M. E. J., Barabási, A. L. & Watts, D. J. (eds) The Structure and Dynamics of Networks (Princeton University Press, 2006).
2. Newman, M. Networks: An Introduction (Oxford University Press, 2010).
3. Mucha, P. J., Richardson, T., Macon, K., Porter, M. A. & Onnela, J.-P. Community structure in time-dependent, multiscale, and
multiplex networks. Science 328, 876–878 (2010).
4. Clauset, A., Moore, C. & Newman, M. E. J. Hierarchical structure and the prediction of missing links in networks. Nature 453,
98–101 (2008).
5. Sales-Pardo, M., Guimerà, R., Moreira, A. A. & Nunes Amaral, L. A. Extracting the hierarchical organization of complex systems.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104, 15224–15229 (2007).
6. Chung, F. The heat kernel as the pagerank of a graph. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104, 19735–19740 (2007).
7. Girvan, M. & Newman, M. E. J. Community structure in social and biological networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences 99, 7821–7826 (2002).
8. Palla, G., Barabasi, A.-L. & Vicsek, T. Quantifying social group evolution. Nature 446, 664–667 (2007).
9. Fortunato, S. Community detection in graphs. Physics Reports 486, 75–174 (2010).
10. Liben-Nowell, D. & Kleinberg, J. The link-prediction problem for social networks. Journal of the American Society for Information
Science and Technology 58, 1019–1031 (2007).
11. Radicchi, F., Castellano, C., Cecconi, F., Loreto, V. & Parisi, D. Defining and identifying communities in networks. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences 101, 2658–2663 (2004).
12. Newman, M. E. J. Modularity and community structure in networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 103, 8577–8582
(2006).
13. Fortunato, S. & Barthélemy, M. Resolution limit in community detection. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104, 36–41
(2007).
14. Palla, G., Derenyi, I., Farkas, I. & Vicsek, T. Uncovering the overlapping community structure of complex networks in nature and
society. Nature 435, 814–818 (2005).
15. Ball, B., Karrer, B. & Newman, M. E. J. Efficient and principled method for detecting communities in networks. Phys. Rev. E 84,
036103 (2011).
16. Gopalan, P. & Blei, D. Efficient discovery of overlapping communities in massive networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences 110, 14534–14539 (2013).
17. Lancichinetti, A., Fortunato, S. & Kertész, J. Detecting the overlapping and hierarchical community structure of complex networks.
New Journal of Physics 11, 033015 (2009).
18. Delvenne, J. C., Yaliraki, S. N. & Barahona, M. Stability of graph communities across time scales. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences 107, 12755–12760 (2010).
19. Collins, L. M. & Dent, C. W. Omega: A general formulation of the rand index of cluster recovery suitable for non-disjoint solutions.
Multivariate Behavioral Research 23, 231–242 (1988).
20. Blondel, V. D., Guillaume, J.-L., Lambiotte, R. & Lefebvre, E. Fast unfolding of communities in large networks. Journal of Statistical
Mechanics: Theory and Experiment 2008, P10008+ (2008).
21. Rosvall, M. & Bergstrom, C. T. Maps of random walks on complex networks reveal community structure. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences 105, 1118–1123 (2008).
22. Lancichinetti, A., Radicchi, F., Ramasco, J. J. & Fortunato, S. Finding Statistically Significant Communities in Networks. PLoS ONE
6 (2011).
23. Ahn, Y.-Y., Bagrow, J. P. & Lehmann, S. Link communities reveal multiscale complexity in networks. Nature 466, 761–764 (2010).
24. Lancichinetti, A., Fortunato, S. & Radicchi, F. Benchmark graphs for testing community detection algorithms. Phys. Rev. E 78,
046110 (2008).
25. Krzakala, F. et al. Spectral redemption in clustering sparse networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110,
20935–20940 (2013).
26. Leskovec, J., Lang, K. J., Dasgupta, A. & Mahoney, M. W. Community structure in large networks: Natural cluster sizes and the
absence of large well-defined clusters. Internet Mathematics 6, 29–123 (2009).
27. Andersen, R. & Lang, K. An Algorithm for Improving Graph Partitions. Proceedings of the Symposium on Discrete Algorithms
651–660 (2008).
28. Gleich, D. F. & Mahoney, M. M. Anti-differentiating approximation algorithms: A case study with min-cuts, spectral, and flow.
Proceedings of the International Conference on Machine Learning 1018–1025 (2014).
29. Bensoni, B., Gleich, D. F. & Leskoveci, J. Higher-order organization of complex networks. Science 353, 163–166 (2016).

Author Contributions
A.S. and K.R. conceived the research. D.G. designed the analyses. A.S. managed the data collection and conducted
the analyses. A.S. and D.G. wrote the manuscript. K.R. edited the manuscript.

Additional Information
Supplementary information accompanies this paper at https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-30401-0.
Competing Interests: The authors declare no competing interests.
Publisher's note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.

SCientifiC REPOrTS | (2018) 8:11909 | DOI:10.1038/s41598-018-30401-0 9

www.nature.com/scientificreports/

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or
format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Cre-
ative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this
article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the
material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not per-
mitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the
copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

© The Author(s) 2018

SCientifiC REPOrTS | (2018) 8:11909 | DOI:10.1038/s41598-018-30401-0 10